hereisonehand - LessWrong 2.0 viewerhttps://www.greaterwrong.com/
hereisonehand - LessWrong 2.0 vieweren-usComment by hereisonehand on How to improve at critical thinking on science/medical literature?https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/bYQjpfu4YPckWrWkK/how-to-improve-at-critical-thinking-on-science-medical#comment-DzYdJKGzeH9nAANgK
<p>Prac­ti­cally speak­ing, how might I go about check­ing if a study has been repli­cated in­de­pen­dently? </p>hereisonehandDzYdJKGzeH9nAANgKWed, 15 May 2019 02:07:44 +0000Comment by hereisonehand on How to improve at critical thinking on science/medical literature?https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/bYQjpfu4YPckWrWkK/how-to-improve-at-critical-thinking-on-science-medical#comment-Qi2RbNjB8WvhNAWjC
<p>Thanks for the feed­back. Will change the for­mat in the fu­ture!</p>hereisonehandQi2RbNjB8WvhNAWjCTue, 14 May 2019 23:43:29 +0000Comment by hereisonehand on How to improve at critical thinking on science/medical literature?https://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/bYQjpfu4YPckWrWkK/how-to-improve-at-critical-thinking-on-science-medical#comment-73kn6te8uRNcxnGxF
<p>Thanks for the links. I think one con­cern that keeps pop­ping up is that by read­ing more anal­y­sis of other pa­pers I’m just learn­ing oth­ers’ thoughts rather than learn­ing to think my own. </p><p>Con­stantin’s fact post ap­proach does seem like an effec­tive way to cut through that. </p>hereisonehand73kn6te8uRNcxnGxFTue, 14 May 2019 21:00:30 +0000How to improve at critical thinking on science/​medical literature? by hereisonehandhttps://www.greaterwrong.com/posts/bYQjpfu4YPckWrWkK/how-to-improve-at-critical-thinking-on-science-medical
<p>I’m a med­i­cal stu­dent, and I will of­ten read ar­ti­cles that are crit­i­cal of sci­en­tific liter­a­ture (<a href="https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/03/06/antidepressant-pharmacogenomics-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/">Scott Alexan­der on Phar­ma­coge­nomics</a>; <a href="https://emcrit.org/emnerd/the-case-of-the-magicians-sleight/">EMCrit on throm­bol­y­sis in is­chemic stroke</a>, etc.) with some awe at the au­thors’ abil­ity to eval­u­ate ev­i­dence. </p><p>I’m sure that part of this is prac­tice. If I spend more time crit­i­cally read­ing sci­en­tific liter­a­ture, and less time tak­ing ex­perts at face value, I will likely be­come bet­ter able to think in­de­pen­dently.</p><p>How­ever, part of it strikes me as a lack of tech­ni­cal skills. I’m of­ten un­sure how to cri­tique study de­signs when I don’t un­der­stand the statis­ti­cal meth­ods be­ing used.</p><p>Any recom­men­da­tions for how I might get the skills I need to think in­de­pen­dently about sci­en­tific/​med­i­cal liter­a­ture?</p><p>[Edit: Changed for­mat­ting of links af­ter a com­ment]</p>hereisonehandbYQjpfu4YPckWrWkKTue, 14 May 2019 11:58:34 +0000